[Mgs] Evaporative loss and anti-run on valve tubing sizes

[PaulHunt73]

Don't expect much of an improvement in mileage by eliminating vapour leaks, but definitely a good idea to do so for the other reasons.  The tank rotting through on the top is a fairly common event, but that is usually accompanied by staining down the front and sides.  With the separator in the boot that and its associated plumbing has to be favourite though.  The separator seems to use threaded fittings, but it should be possible to fit plain hose to those.

Ordinarily the hose at the bottom of the ARO is only pulling in air, to scavenge the charcoal granules.  However if the float chamber valve(s) stick open then fuel will eventually run out of that hose.  But it's never going to be under pressure, or holding fuel, so anything that fits will be fine.

Can't comment on the relative sizes of the rocker cover and canister ports except to say that in pictures and Parts Catalogue I can't see any reduction in hose OD between the two.  If it really is different then get something to fit the rocker cover and pad it out at the canister.  It's only pulling air and fumes through, no petrol in an overflow situation like the ARO valve lower hose, but I'd still use fuel-grade hose for it and in all the other places hose is used.

PaulH.


----- Original Message ----- 


  Some remnants of the evaporative loss tubing is still there, but it's hard to tell what to use for a proper replacement for the perished bits. The hose running from the valve cover to the canister seems like it's supposed to have a different inner diameter on each end. And there's also the hose that runs from the bottom of the ARO valve. I'm just ghetto enough that if I thought a piece of last summer's garden hose would do the trick, I would go that route, but I doubt it's that simple. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://autox.team.net/pipermail/mgs/attachments/20180103/d09c4415/attachment.html>